General Discussion

StrongBad

(2,100 posts)

23. Sending them back to their home country is enforcing the law, which is fine.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:31 PM

Sep 2015

No problems there.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is it ok to selectively choose what laws to enforce? [View all] StrongBad Sep 2015 OP

Entering the country without documentation is not a crime nichomachus Sep 2015 #1

Nice try my friend. StrongBad Sep 2015 #3

Here's a link just for you StrongBad Sep 2015 #4

The laws in that link are being enforced every day arcane1 Sep 2015 #40

So why do people get up in arms with talk to enforce the law to a greater degree? StrongBad Sep 2015 #67

Ask them n/t arcane1 Sep 2015 #68

No human should ever be considered "illegal." ananda Sep 2015 #41

are they legally in the country or not? that is what was meant still_one Sep 2015 #65

Semantics StrongBad Sep 2015 #66

And TeddyR Sep 2015 #2

If I eat an apple for breakfast, why shouldn't I eat apple pie for dinner? geek tragedy Sep 2015 #5

But both require punishment by law (including jail time) if violated StrongBad Sep 2015 #6

they do not 'require' punishment. Stop getting your information from this guy: geek tragedy Sep 2015 #10

A link just for you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #12

I can understand your glee in thinking you've found your silver bullet geek tragedy Sep 2015 #15

It is indeed a civil crime to be enforced by deportation StrongBad Sep 2015 #95

"civil crime" geek tragedy Sep 2015 #98

Fine pedant. Civil offense StrongBad Sep 2015 #99

You seem to be missing an important point jberryhill Sep 2015 #7

Not enforcing laws violates the rights of people who live in a society of law. StrongBad Sep 2015 #8

No it does not, and you clearly do not understand how law works jberryhill Sep 2015 #17

No argument from me there, but the state does have power to enforce violations against itself. StrongBad Sep 2015 #22

Sometimes it's a matter of resources. RichVRichV Sep 2015 #111

Would you prefer boxcars or labor camps for people caught illegally crossing the border? geek tragedy Sep 2015 #18

Sending them back to their home country is enforcing the law, which is fine. StrongBad Sep 2015 #23

That's what is being done already. If they get caught illegally crossing the border, they geek tragedy Sep 2015 #25

The whole topic of this convo is regarding how most ppl here don't think that's a good thing. StrongBad Sep 2015 #43

Are you saying this topic is that if we accept 1 law as good, we should accept them all as good? uppityperson Sep 2015 #48

No, but we should accept them all as the law... StrongBad Sep 2015 #64

Accept bad laws as law and don't oppose more resources being diverted to their enforcement? uppityperson Sep 2015 #69

Not exactly StrongBad Sep 2015 #77

you seem to be changing what you are saying. uppityperson Sep 2015 #80

Ok if you want to be pedantic, the latter version is a better expressed version of my position. StrongBad Sep 2015 #82

just trying to be clear and understand since there is a big difference, not minor details between uppityperson Sep 2015 #90

No it doesn't. That's a silly assertion. fishwax Sep 2015 #75

Now prove standing... NutmegYankee Sep 2015 #78

The Republican Party is over there, to the right, next to those idiots in the tricorn hats. Maedhros Sep 2015 #9

Not an argument StrongBad Sep 2015 #11

Because there are good laws and bad laws. nt dumbcat Sep 2015 #13

And you're saying it's up to the individual to make that judgement call? StrongBad Sep 2015 #16

You are free to test that theory to your heart's content jberryhill Sep 2015 #19

Illegal entry is a violation of the state, not indiviual. StrongBad Sep 2015 #24

Your question sort of answers itself... jberryhill Sep 2015 #34

True, the gov't doesn't HAVE to enforce every violation of law to the letter. StrongBad Sep 2015 #71

Have at it dumbcat Sep 2015 #26

I'm curious if people who support the president, governors and mayors exercising their discretion branford Sep 2015 #29

I think I know the answer to your question dumbcat Sep 2015 #33

Unless you're an elected executive, both our opinions don't really matter. branford Sep 2015 #47

Oh, hey! geek tragedy Sep 2015 #42

I never left. branford Sep 2015 #49

prosecutorial discretion is a necessity. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #52

I understand and agree with the necessity of prosecutorial discretion, branford Sep 2015 #70

such broad discretion exists only in the face of Congressional abdication. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #76

While that may be true, the President gains no greater authority branford Sep 2015 #101

I don't think it is possible to enforce all of the laws on the books. Make7 Sep 2015 #14

Please show me an example of a judge or ICE agent refusing to enforce immigration law. KamaAina Sep 2015 #20

I can't, because that's not the topic of my query StrongBad Sep 2015 #27

this isn't a prosecution, genius, it's contempt of court. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #30

And contempt of court is a violation of law, as is being in the country illegally. StrongBad Sep 2015 #31

No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, as is the case with most Trump-loving geek tragedy Sep 2015 #37

Correct, it is a civil offense, which according to civil law has penalty of deportation. StrongBad Sep 2015 #39

So, effectively you're whining that all 11 million undocumented immigrants aren't being rounded geek tragedy Sep 2015 #45

Hypothetically, if there were 11 million clerks not performing their duties... StrongBad Sep 2015 #51

so this is what it's like to debate birthers nt geek tragedy Sep 2015 #53

Pretty much, yeah jberryhill Sep 2015 #57

Not an argument. StrongBad Sep 2015 #58

No, but it's a fact. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #59

Many police departments are refusing to enforce gun control laws branford Sep 2015 #56

yes, they have the discretion to look for rapists and murderers rather than stopping geek tragedy Sep 2015 #61

We are then in agreement, although I imagine others here might not be as ideologically consistent.nt branford Sep 2015 #73

What a fucking stupid comparison. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #21

Did you post in the wrong thread? StrongBad Sep 2015 #32

Did you reply to the wrong reply in this thread? It's a stupid fucking comparison. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #35

Please explain why it's ok to enforce some laws and not others. StrongBad Sep 2015 #46

No. Because immigration laws ARE being enforced every goddamn day. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #50

They do seem upset when people talk about diverting more resources to support the laws enforcement. StrongBad Sep 2015 #62

"They"? You mean Democrats? You use "they" because you're not part of that group, right? PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #72

No, I'm not part of the group of hypocrites. Thanks for asking. StrongBad Sep 2015 #81

Are you a Democrat? PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #84

Yeah see elsewhere on this thread. I've been on this board for 12 years and have voted Dem since2000 StrongBad Sep 2015 #86

Your contention is that those who disagree with you are hypocrites. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #89

It is hypocritical to want enforcement of some laws and not others. StrongBad Sep 2015 #91

Nope. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #92

No, it isn't hypocritical at all fishwax Sep 2015 #96

Yes but civil disobedience implies that you are knowingly breaking the law and expect punishment StrongBad Sep 2015 #97

it doesn't mean (as a supporter, rather than a practitioner) that you expect/desire enforcement fishwax Sep 2015 #100

This ^ PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #109

it's make "we" Democrats Facility Inspector Sep 2015 #87

This thread is amusing LittleBlue Sep 2015 #28

Thank you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #36

I agree with you and understand what you're saying. Keep in mind though, we, as a society, have ... BlueJazz Sep 2015 #79

RW nonsense. Sell it elsewhere. JoePhilly Sep 2015 #38

Not an argument. StrongBad Sep 2015 #83

The immigration laws ARE enforced.... steve2470 Sep 2015 #44

It's obviously a question of practicality and right and wrong. joshcryer Sep 2015 #54

+1 nt steve2470 Sep 2015 #60

Some laws exist for bad or stupid reasons, some for good reasons, and some just exist. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #55

And who is the arbiter of what is an acceptable law? StrongBad Sep 2015 #93

Sure you can! Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #114

Erich has pretty much hit the nail on the head here discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2015 #115

Cause requiring someone on foot with a lantern preceed each car One_Life_To_Give Sep 2015 #63

Because we're not robots. randome Sep 2015 #74

Cool, I'm gonna use that defense next time I break the law. StrongBad Sep 2015 #88

This is a case of a governmental official refusing to perform their governmental function for prayin4rain Sep 2015 #85

Do you think the federal government should enforce marijuana laws B Calm Sep 2015 #94

or laws concerning gun control, protecting abortion clinics and other civil rights, etc. branford Sep 2015 #102

I recommend we impeach her and subsequently fire her rock Sep 2015 #103

I'm pretty sure that the whole issue is that she can't be fired. StrongBad Sep 2015 #104

Ironically, she's a Democrat, and her removal would mean branford Sep 2015 #106

I LOVE how this lady getting thrown in jail has caused an uproar among the ignorant fundies! Rex Sep 2015 #105

I am in complete agreement with you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #107

Oh were we staying on topic? I noticed you are all over the place as are others in this thread. Rex Sep 2015 #108

You're asking the wrong person. I don't know much about that issue. StrongBad Sep 2015 #110

Check it out, you will be surprised at how relaxed they are about illegal gerrymandering. Rex Sep 2015 #112

It happens all the time gratuitous Sep 2015 #113